3 ms·

Speaking of ridiculous... You've got it entirely backwards. In your scenario, the atheists would be risking their first amendment protections because they're t

Speaking of ridiculous... You've got it entirely backwards. In your scenario, the atheists would be risking their first amendment protections because they're the ones threatening to murder someone. Even in that case, it is unlikely that any law enforcement agency would garner enough support to actually silence them until they'd gone out and hurt someone. See also: Westboro Baptist. The day that anyone associated with Westboro acts on their hateful speech is the day that they'll be shut down. The best argument against silencing this ridiculous video isn't the fact that it's full of false claims and nut-job ideology, but that there are serious doubts as to whether it is the "true" driving factor behind the attacks. There are suspicions that the attacks were orchestrated separately, and the video is just a red herring.

ppod 14y ago
>whether it is the "true" driving factor behind the attacks Can't you see the analogy between my scenario and this scenario? You make it sound as though if the video was the true motivating factor, then it should be banned. This is analogous with the Catholic mass in my scenario - by following the same logic, if the mass were the true driving factor behind the atheist's violence, then the mass should be banned. You can't let threats (or acts) of violence influence what is protected speech and what isn't.
- bradleyland 14y ago
  I see the correlation of the actors now, but I still don't agree with this: "You can't let threats (or acts) of violence influence what is protected speech and what isn't." We can, and we do. Look at the suicide of Tyler Clementi and the resulting sentencing of Dharun Ravi [1]. Look at the case of the anti-abortion wanted-posters [2]. The protection of free speech is not black and white. I understand that this makes people uneasy, but you can't have black & white distinctions in a population greater than one. [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_v._Dharun_Ravi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_v._Dharun_Ravi [2] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#Physician_.22wanted.22_posters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#Physicia...
uvdiv 14y ago
You've got it entirely backwards. In your scenario, the atheists would be risking their first amendment protections because they're the ones threatening to murder someone. No, the parallel was accurate. The guy in California threatened no one, and his freedom of speech is on the line because other guys, who disagreed with him, committed murder.

ppod 14y ago

>whether it is the "true" driving factor behind the attacks Can't you see the analogy between my scenario and this scenario? You make it sound as though if the video was the true motivating factor, then it should be banned. This is analogous with the Catholic mass in my scenario - by following the same logic, if the mass were the true driving factor behind the atheist's violence, then the mass should be banned. You can't let threats (or acts) of violence influence what is protected speech and what isn't.

bradleyland 14y ago
I see the correlation of the actors now, but I still don't agree with this: "You can't let threats (or acts) of violence influence what is protected speech and what isn't." We can, and we do. Look at the suicide of Tyler Clementi and the resulting sentencing of Dharun Ravi [1]. Look at the case of the anti-abortion wanted-posters [2]. The protection of free speech is not black and white. I understand that this makes people uneasy, but you can't have black & white distinctions in a population greater than one. [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_v._Dharun_Ravi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_v._Dharun_Ravi [2] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#Physician_.22wanted.22_posters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#Physicia...

uvdiv 14y ago

You've got it entirely backwards. In your scenario, the atheists would be risking their first amendment protections because they're the ones threatening to murder someone. No, the parallel was accurate. The guy in California threatened no one, and his freedom of speech is on the line because other guys, who disagreed with him, committed murder.